[QUOTE=AngryWomble;49054]I've not tried dog yet cos it's not something you'd get over here, however if i'm abroad and find a decent and clean eating establishment that has it on the menu then i'd give it a whorl if the dish looked appetising. I don't think that cognitive confusion comes into it, some people will just not eat a meat that their culture would traditionally not associate with as food.

I'm not morally confused.....i'm just limited by what the supermarkets have in stock......[/QUOTE]

True, AW, good point. While I have no personal interest in dog - more a (negative) whim, a friend has told me about a gourmet restaurant that makes an truly superb dish from horse, which I would like to try.

I think I tend to class dogs and cats as fellow predators and allied species, and give them a "get off the menu free" card.

[QUOTE=SkyWalker53;49621]Only the sharpest minds are capable of breaking free of societal conditioning.... If it is okay to kill a cow, then ALL killing become justifiable, including wars, capital punishment, humans, children, dogs, cats and so on.[/QUOTE]

This is the reasoning of someone who, on the basis of other posts, considers herself to have "one of the sharpest minds".

[QUOTE=SkyWalker53;49662]Dearest DK, Solf spends her free time helping out people in shelters and other humanitarian activities as well as animals. She does more volunteer work for humans in one weekend than you'll do in your entire lifetime.[/QUOTE]

It's nice to know that the self-designated "sharpest minds" around here have time for ridiculous personal accusations based on fundamental innumeracy.

[QUOTE=solfeggio;51562]This whole fantasy that somebody cooked up of humans as being somehow 'superior' to the presumed 'lower' animals is just one of the fallacies that society has dreamed up to justify using other species for our own ends.

Another fallacy is that other species should be somehow 'useful' to us in order to matter.

Both these ideas could be laughed off as asinine if if weren't for the fact that the overwhelming majority of people are actually stupid enough to believe in them, which of course means endless pain and suffering for the unfortunate species deemed 'useful.'

The right to full membership in the moral community and the right NOT to be treated as property is dependent upon one characterisitic, and one characteristic only: SENTIENCE.

If a nonhuman is sentient, then we have a moral obligation not to treat that being as a resource or means to an end.

As I have said before and will repeat here:

Humans are not THE measure of all things; we are only ONE measure amongst many.

A little humility would go a long way here.[/QUOTE]

You can't have it both ways. If you want to call humans to a higher code of conduct, you must admit their superior state of being.

If not, it's ridiculous for you to insist we act any differently than any of our other supposedly equal animals in regard to the "rights" of others.

Animals use other animals as means to ends.

If we are animals... and all animals are equal...

... then there is nothing wrong with us using others as means to ends.

[QUOTE=SkyWalker53;49693]Hey, between you, Mindis, and Suze, I couldn't be more pleased that we don't concoct embarrassing "ding-dong" statements to try to excuse animal abuse and cruelty. Across the board, those who defend animal cruelty and killing to stuff their faces are of limited cognition and intelligence as can be easily observed.[/QUOTE]

A new would be member of the Cabal of the Scientifically Clueless. I wonder what (other) howlers he will contribute.

He really must share with the field of psychology his ability to measure intelligence from internet posts... he's obviously way ahead of all those poor, scientifically inept psychologists.

[QUOTE=AngryWomble;50407]If you want to win people over beating them over their heads with how wrong and evil they are and insulting their intelligence is not the way to go about it.[/QUOTE]

AW, being an ARE is not about helping animals, or about making rational arguments... it's about stoking your ego by deriding other people as stupider, less clear, less moral, etcetera.... as this thread amply demonstrates.

[QUOTE=SkyWalker53;50421]Gladly BobGreen, you are added to that list of "I'm not knuckle headed enough to champion animal cruelty".... Yep, you get it and you are a shining example of those of us who get it....It's something I'm noticing about those who champion animal killing on this board. They are UNABLE (limited perception and cognition) to connect in a mutually meaningful way with the life around them; nor are they able to connect the dots with logical consistency.... The animal abuse advocates are only able to interact with the animals they kill or pay to have killed via a selfish LIMITED disconnected one-sided perception. The opposite of empathy..... Such cognitive dissonance is only possible with limited intelligence and cognition. Too bad for the animals that there are so many stupid humans.[/QUOTE]

There, AW, is the whole thing in a nutshell. Animal Rights Extremists don't care about doing good, they care about feeling good, without reference to reality.

It's all about deriding others in order to inflate the ego of oneself and one's little party of mutual sycophants.

[QUOTE=John_T_Mainer;50737]There is no cognitive confusion about being angered by dogfighting. I own dogs, and I eat meat. I both keep domesticated animals and consume the flesh of animals harvested for my consumption. I therefore do not have any moral qualms about either keeping, or killing animals. I do have serious moral issues about abusing them.

As you are always attempting to pretend that animals are people, let us translate this situation into its human equivalent, and use it to demonstrate my position. I was a soldier and thus have no problem in killing enemy combatants. I handed over prisoners to the civilian authorities that were aprehended in violation of the laws, and who surrendered to our forces. That does not mean that I condone, or would fail to oppose in every way the sorts of abuses of prisoners that have come to light in Iraq.

Torture, or the needless infliction of pain and/or humiliation is wrong and should be opposed by all moral persons. Likewise the needless infliction of pain that comes from making two animals fight to the death simply for your pleasure is morally abhorrent.

The utilitarian model is a good one for the morality of this stance. Is this action necessary? No. Is this action harmful? Yes. Is their any offsetting benefit that may justify or require the harm caused by this action? No. Then this action is not moral. This action is clearly immoral.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=solfeggio;51562]This whole fantasy that somebody cooked up of humans as being somehow 'superior' to the presumed 'lower' animals is just one of the fallacies that society has dreamed up to justify using other species for our own ends.

"humans can live on grass" Solf is going to lecture us about fantasy? Ah, the hubris!

Humans are not THE measure of all things; we are only ONE measure amongst many.

A little humility would go a long way here.[/QUOTE]

Solf, you need to learn to apply this principle on a personal level. You and your cronies are not divinely gifted arbiters of morality.